A research and innovation agenda for energy resilience in Pacific Island Countries and Territories

Abstract

Pacific Island Countries and Territories have set ambitious targets for energy access and the transition to sustainable energy. These efforts, however, are being severely impacted by shocks and stresses such as climate change, natural hazards and the COVID-19 pandemic. Resilience is a central pillar for energy policy in the region, but innovative approaches are needed to address these urgent challenges. Here we examine the role of research and innovation in supporting energy resilience in Pacific Island Countries and Territories. We argue that research and innovation in three key areas is needed: energy planning and innovative finance approaches tailored to the particular strengths and challenges in Pacific Island Countries and Territories; greater recognition and inclusion of community responses to energy challenges; and promotion of decentralized approaches to energy in terms of governance and technologies. Emerging from these three areas, we identify 11 research and innovation priorities to build the evidence base that will mobilize stakeholders in a collaborative effort to accelerate action on energy resilience. Pacific Island Countries and Territories are seeking to improve their energy systems, which face challenges such as climate change. This Perspective discusses research priorities to support Pacific Island Countries and Territories in building energy resilience while drawing on their own unique strengths and existing community responses.

Full text

PersPective
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00935-1
1STEER Centre, Geography and Environment, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. 2School of
Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 3Collaboration on Energy and Environmental Markets,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 4Environment and Society Group, School of Humanities and Languages, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia. 5School of Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 6Centre of Renewable
Energy—School of Natural and Physical Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. 7STEMP, The University of the South
Pacific, Suva, Fiji. ✉e-mail: l.to@lboro.ac.uk
Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs; Fig. 1) face
multiple short-term shocks and long-term stresses that impact
on their energy systems. Short-term shocks include cyclones
and associated storm surges, and geological disturbances caus-
ing both earthquakes and tsunamis. Long-term stresses include
sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Most of these risks are increas-
ing in severity due to global climate change, and their impacts are
exacerbated by the economic isolation triggered by recent COVID-
19 disruptions to supply chains and travel. PICTs dominate the
World Risk Index’s list of most-at-risk countries—with four of the
top eight countries with the ‘highest disaster risk’ being located in
the region: Vanuatu (first), Tonga (second), Solomon Islands (fifth)
and Papua New Guinea (eighth)1. This reflects the exposure that
these countries have to hazards, and the remote locations of these
communities. The small scale of many PICTs also leads to technical
and institutional capacity limitations in terms of coping with and
responding to hazards1.
These risks have substantial implications for the achievement
of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within the region,
including SDG7, which focuses on universal energy access, increas-
ing the share of renewable energy in the energy mix and improving
energy efficiency. Current electricity access levels in the PICTs range
between 60% and 100%, while the share of renewable energy in the
electricity sector varies between 0% and 50% in different jurisdic-
tions2,3. However, these figures include people who only have access
to basic household energy services (such as lights, refrigerators,
fans and radios)4. Access to a wider range of energy services is still
limited for many communities in PICTs5. Energy efficiency is also
problematic across PICTs, with generally poor quality and quickly
deteriorating energy appliances and generators, as well as a lack of
comprehensive measures and targets for energy efficiency6.
PICTs have ambitious renewable energy targets to reduce their
dependence on imported fossil fuels (including diesel for electric-
ity generation), improve energy security and provide leadership for
international climate action by setting an example for other regions.
Some progress is being made via national strategic plans and
sector-specific policies, as well as via international agreements such
as Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement and
Energy Compact submissions as part of the High-Level Dialogue on
Energy7,8. Tokelau has been celebrated as the world’s first nation to
achieve 100% renewable electricity9 and almost all other PICTs have
similarly ambitious renewable energy targets, with many planning
to achieve 100% renewables by 2030 or sooner. Electricity access
targets remain a key focus for countries such as Papua New Guinea,
Solomon Islands and Vanuatu that have lower levels of energy access.
Resilience is a way to better understand and navigate complexity
and uncertainty that has been used in many different contexts and
fields10. Energy resilience can be defined as the “ability to reduce
the impact of shocks and stresses, including the capacity to antici-
pate, absorb, adapt to, and rapidly recover from such events and to
transform where necessary”11. The inclusion of energy resilience
in policy and programme design can safeguard and accelerate the
transition to clean and affordable energy for all, and enable PICTs
to achieve their ambitious but vitally important targets. Indeed,
the region has been a frontrunner in transitioning to a resilience
approach in energy policy through the Framework of Action for
Energy Security in the Pacific 2010–2020, and the new Framework
for Energy Security and Resilience in the Pacific 2021–2030.
A research and innovation agenda for energy
resilience in Pacific Island Countries and
Territories
Long Seng To 1 ✉ , Anna Bruce 2,3, Paul Munro3,4, Edoardo Santagata2,3, Iain MacGill3,5,
Manu Rawali3,5,6 and Atul Raturi3,7
Pacific Island Countries and Territories have set ambitious targets for energy access and the transition to sustainable energy.
These efforts, however, are being severely impacted by shocks and stresses such as climate change, natural hazards and the
COVID-19 pandemic. Resilience is a central pillar for energy policy in the region, but innovative approaches are needed to
address these urgent challenges. Here we examine the role of research and innovation in supporting energy resilience in Pacific
Island Countries and Territories. We argue that research and innovation in three key areas is needed: energy planning and inno-
vative finance approaches tailored to the particular strengths and challenges in Pacific Island Countries and Territories; greater
recognition and inclusion of community responses to energy challenges; and promotion of decentralized approaches to energy
in terms of governance and technologies. Emerging from these three areas, we identify 11 research and innovation priorities to
build the evidence base that will mobilize stakeholders in a collaborative effort to accelerate action on energy resilience.
NATURE ENERGY | VOL 6 | DECEMBER 2021 | 1098–1103 | www.nature.com/natureenergy
1098

PersPective
NaTuRE ENERgy
Energy resilience is also embedded in the Framework for Resilient
Development in the Pacific 2017–2030. At the national level, disas-
ter resilience has increasingly been integrated into energy and cli-
mate policies, including in Fiji, Vanuatu and Tuvalu12–14, while Palau
considers resilience to be a key aspect in ensuring the security of
their energy supply15.
Nevertheless, much remains to be done. Innovative approaches
that address the unique challenges and make use of the strengths in
the region are needed to realize the ambitions of PICTs, and these
would greatly benefit from greater focus on energy resilience. There
is a particular need for work that integrates relevant knowledge
from diverse fields such as energy, resilience and innovation with a
deep understanding of the region.
In this Perspective, we identify key research and innovation pri-
orities that will need to be addressed to achieve energy resilience
while also meeting the renewable energy and energy access targets
in the region. These priorities were informed by an ongoing col-
laboration with key regional stakeholders as well as international
researchers. This included a review of the literature, case studies of
six countries and a series of workshops in 202016,17. We argue that
three core themes need to be addressed. The first is better integra-
tion of energy planning and innovative finance approaches tailored
to the energy resilience strengths and challenges in PICTs. The
second is greater engagement with community responses. Existing
forms of resilience exist within the region’s communities that can
be enhanced and deployed in the energy sector. The final theme is
promotion of decentralized approaches in terms of both governance
and technologies to enhance energy access and resilience. The
boom in smaller-scale solar technologies offers new means for real-
izing access, but the technology needs to be combined with salient
governance approaches to achieve its resilience potential.
Planning and finance
Planning well is always challenging. It benefits from well informed
stakeholders, broad consensus on objectives, a suitable range of
options, and processes to engage all key stakeholders in formulating
anticipatory decisions, with an appropriate allocation of autonomy,
transparency and accountability. Planning for energy resilience is
particularly challenging for PICTs given the wider resilience chal-
lenges that these communities face. Many communities in PICTs
are remote and dispersed, routinely exposed to challenging weather
and dependent on small-scale marine transport for critical supplies
including diesel fuel. Accounting for threats and vulnerabilities in
energy planning decisions must therefore extend beyond natural
hazard response and critical infrastructure planning. Planning for
energy resilience means embedding robustness and ways of recover-
ing from disruptions into all energy decision-making. This requires
further research and innovation to incorporate resilience principles
into routine planning tools and processes.
Energy planning in PICTs is primarily focused on grid-based
electricity supply. However, energy infrastructure is often ageing
and poorly located due to land access challenges, and therefore
vulnerable to cyclones and storm surges18,19. Asset management is
also challenging due to the harsh environment and financial con-
straints of small national budgets, typically leading to a ‘mainte-
nance on failure’ approach20. Energy planning could better focus on
energy services as an enabler for communities, particularly those
services that are critical to community resilience. It should also rec-
ognize that access to energy services may be achieved in different
ways, especially during emergencies. This requires incorporation
of diverse stakeholder perspectives into planning processes, and
linkage of energy planning to end use goals such as water, health,
education, food security and income-generating applications that
New Zealand
Australia
Papua New Guinea
Indonesia
Timor-Leste
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Tokelau
Cook Islands
French Polynesia
Philippines
Palau
Northern Mariana
Islands
Guam
Federated States
of Micronesia
Solomon
Islands
Vanuatu
New Caledonia
Fiji
Tuvalu
Wallis and
Futuna
Samoa
American Samoa
Niue
Tonga
Kiribati
Equator
180°
121° E
121° E
17° N
17° N
138° W
134° W
47° S
20° S
Pitcairn
Islands
134° W
20° S
121° W
121° W
34° S
34° S
Fig. 1 | Location of PICTs. Map created using mapchart.net.
NATURE ENERGY | VOL 6 | DECEMBER 2021 | 1098–1103 | www.nature.com/natureenergy 1099

PersPective NaTuRE ENERgy
meet community priorities, including those that can increase resil-
ience. Research is needed to identify key linkages between energy
resilience and broader development goals to deliver better policy
integration.
A number of PICTs have put in place plans to mitigate the increas-
ing threats to infrastructure posed by climate change. For instance,
Fiji has implemented a policy to increase building standards and
minimize loss of infrastructure21, including energy infrastructure,
to extreme events. However, the costs of increased standards largely
fall on households and businesses, and implementation has been
hampered by lack of government support and the inability of com-
munities to afford building according to the new standards22.
Energy efficiency standards may also play a role in both meeting
Nationally Determined Contribution targets and improving resil-
ience23. However, implementing appropriate technical standards
for products, installation and maintenance can be financially chal-
lenging under project-based funding arrangements. Also, improv-
ing the quality of systems through standards must not be done at
the expense of repairability—for example, high-quality products
that are imported may not be repairable locally and result in longer
power outages if and when they fail. Further research is needed to
map potential trade-offs between high quality standards for energy
systems, and the ability to maintain and repair systems.
Beyond investment in renewable generation capacity, both
grid investments24 and technical capacity to manage increased
operational complexity are required to successfully transition to
renewables, particularly variable solar and wind. This is further
complicated by the load growth that is common when more reli-
able electricity becomes available. To reach small islands and less
accessible regions of larger islands, PICTs also need to be able to
plan and make decisions across all of the main grid, standalone
minigrid and off-grid options available to them, while technolo-
gies, cost structures and stakeholders continue to evolve and change
(for instance, as tourism sectors have in light of the disruptions of
COVID-19). The lack of data and modelling tools for planning has
been identified by stakeholders as a key barrier to improved plan-
ning25, while the changing dynamics of both challenges and pos-
sible options for delivering energy services require process-driven
planning trajectories, not one-off plans. This requires research and
innovation for improving field data, demand modelling and plan-
ning tools for energy.
The already limited public finance abilities of PICTs9, which are
heavily dependent on external financial support to finance energy
projects, will be further strained with the need to integrate resil-
ience. However, to date climate finance made available for energy
projects has focused on renewable energy investments rather than
grid readiness24 or adaptation25. There is recognition that substantial
private finance will also be needed to achieve the scale of invest-
ment required. Such private investment has thus far been limited
by perceptions of PICTs as small and risky markets26. This fur-
ther emphasizes the importance of appropriate planning as well
as data-gathering on past, present and future projects23 to identify
appropriate financing mechanisms. Standardization of contracts,
regulatory reform and regional approaches may have a role to
play in derisking projects and demonstrating ‘readiness’ to receive
financing, but have been criticized as potentially perpetuating dis-
empowerment and dependence on external agencies26. Proposals
have been put forward for innovative financing mechanisms that
can support longer-tenor finance, and support for domestic finan-
cial institutions to manage risk to build capacity of domestic finance
sectors and investors24. Attention to gender mainstreaming and
equity in climate finance is also needed to ensure that it works for
the most vulnerable27.
Due to their small scale, lack of access to resources and the need to
manage a range of ongoing challenges, PICTs face a number of bar-
riers to planning for energy resilience28. This includes technical and
technoeconomic capacity, but also weak institutional arrangements
with lack of autonomy, lack of transparency and local accountability
for decision-making. For instance, Tokelau is a dependent territory
of New Zealand and is heavily reliant on New Zealand for support
in the energy sector. This puts planning decisions and implemen-
tation timeframes outside local control29. In Papua New Guinea,
planning for climate change and resilience is being framed within a
pre-existing energy access agenda. Investments in the energy sector
have focused on LNG and grid extensions, but other options such as
solar farms, refurbishing hydroelectric plants and off-grid solutions
could improve resilience by diversifying the resource base and could
also be more suitable for dispersed populations in rugged terrain5.
Lack of land for new energy projects is also an issue throughout
the Pacific. Institutional capacity building for resilient planning is
required, with frameworks to ensure accountability and transpar-
ent review processes. Research is needed to inform the design of
multistakeholder planning and implementation review processes
to build capacity, autonomy, transparency and accountability for
energy-related decision-making. In addition, research is needed to
identify pathways for addressing land conflicts and broader com-
munity politics associated with energy projects, and to create con-
flict resolution mechanisms that can be integrated into planning
processes.
Despite their ambition, many PICTs’ national and regional level
plans for renewable energy and energy access have remained unful-
filled and become rapidly outdated. Ongoing planning processes
that incorporate feedback on evolving stakeholder priorities and
barriers to implementation are needed. There is a particular need
for innovative planning tools that include resilience in routine
planning processes, and integrate across sectors, both on and off
grid. This requires a structured process of regular data collection of
actual energy system performance in the field to input to planning.
PICTs have existing regional mechanisms that could be utilized to
overcome challenges of scale and capacity, but past challenges of
translating regional plans to national action30 must be addressed.
Leveraging a regional approach with a strong interface to national
planning will be key. Further research is needed to identify lever-
age points in existing regional mechanisms that can interface with
national planning to overcome challenges of scale and capacity.
Community responses
A community is a group of people who live in the same area, have
common interests or have a common identity. Communities can
play an important role in energy resilience31, while renewable energy
technologies can contribute to community resilience32. Due to the
remoteness and frequent disasters faced by communities in PICTs,
there is greater reliance on communities to maintain their renew-
able energy systems to prevent premature breakdown and to repair
them in the aftermath of disasters33. Communities in the Pacific
have strong identities of resilience34 which should be acknowledged
in the energy sector. Traditional customs and practices have con-
tributed to disaster resilience and adaptive capacity in PICTs. For
example, smallholder farmers in Papua New Guinea have adopted
more flexible land access arrangements, based on indigenous sys-
tems of land sharing that traditionally operate through kinship, as a
risk management strategy in response to pressures from population
growth and climate change35. These longstanding relationship-based
sources of community resilience can extend beyond geographic
boundaries. Families replicate the adaptive behaviour of others
within their social network, and these networks are often clustered
by common livelihood strategies36. To spark transformative action
at the local level, energy resilience initiatives must bolster existing
livelihood strategies.
National energy planning must be integrated with and tailored
to specific community energy resilience strategies, such as commu-
nity members taking an active role in restoring energy services after
NATURE ENERGY | VOL 6 | DECEMBER 2021 | 1098–1103 | www.nature.com/natureenergy
1100

PersPective
NaTuRE ENERgy
disasters31. Building on the energy resilience strategies of each com-
munity is essential because adaptive capacity and relative exposure
to risks can vary substantially between communities, even those
that are geographically close together. When objectives are written
in broad and administrative terms rather than direct outcomes for
communities, it becomes difficult to assess impact37. The Vanuatu
Community Resilience Framework offers an example of how
community-scale disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation
work can contribute to national planning through building local
capacity and networks38. Holistic planning of innovation processes
is needed to ensure that opportunities to enhance community resil-
ience via energy services are maximized32.
‘Communities’ are not homogeneous and community-based
resilience projects should not overlook issues of equity. Local
inequalities can lead to unequal distribution of benefits from such
opportunities. Experience with climate adaptation and resilience
initiatives in Vanuatu particularly highlight the vulnerability of
women and people with disabilities, and the need for including
marginalized groups in decision-making39,40. Local power dynamics
are important to consider, as those in charge may resist initiatives
that threaten their current standing37. Securing the support of local
leaders and the diverse groups within the community is needed. The
Pacific tradition of talanoa, of inclusive, participatory and transpar-
ent dialogue for decision-making for the greater good, is essential
for ensuring energy access in the long term by ensuring community
engagement and ownership. Simply including the preferences of
communities is not enough; initiatives need to include local repre-
sentation and interface with existing structures to identify appropri-
ate entry points across regional, national and community scales41.
Further research is needed on the resilience strategies that
communities currently deploy, including those that build on tra-
ditional customs and practices, which could be used to improve
resilience in the energy sector. This would inform best practices
for community-based energy resilience initiatives, including how
diverse communities can participate in creating innovative business
models and technologies for energy services that are more resilient
and create livelihood opportunities. Innovation in the policy space
is needed to integrate community resilience and national energy
planning, including fine-grained data and tools to enable com-
munities to better understand and participate in energy planning.
To improve diversity and inclusion in these plans, further research
is required to build a more detailed understanding of the energy
needs and resilience strategies of historically marginalized groups.
As one key example, there has been a lack of research on clean cook-
ing energy needs and preferences in PICTs, a space predominantly
relevant to women in several PICT cultures. It is critical to address
this research gap, as the Oceania region, excluding Australia and
New Zealand, has the lowest level of access to clean cooking fuels
and technologies in the world, at only 15% (ref. 42).
Decentralized approaches
Emerging energy technologies, such as solar off-grid systems, have
created new and more decentralized approaches to energy dissemi-
nation and governance in PICTs. Given the archipelago-like geo-
graphical nature of much of the Pacific, decentralized approaches
present an opportunity to effectively deliver energy services where
centralized electricity grids are not appropriate. Minigrids and
microgrids powered by varied mixes of renewable and fossil-fuel
generation are already supplying electricity on larger islands43,44.
Around 6,900 minigrids have already been installed in the Asia–
Pacific region overall, with expectations of rapid growth in upcom-
ing years45. Compared with more complex and large-scale grid
infrastructure (large generators and transmission infrastructure),
smaller-scale off-grid solar products (such as solar lanterns and
solar home systems) have the potential to offer resilient forms of
energy access during disaster events due to their modular design
and flexible application. They are less susceptible to widespread
disruption during disaster events such as floods, hurricanes and
earthquakes46.
Smaller off-grid solar products have also been important for
disaster response efforts—being rapidly distributed in post-disaster
contexts to supply lighting to blacked-out households47. Over the
past decade, there has been rapid change in the political economy
of how these products are disseminated, with some shifts from aid
to enterprise48,49. Earlier projects in the off-grid energy space were
largely facilitated with aid funding and through the not-for-profit
sector50,51. More recently, however, there has been the emergence
of a self-directed off-grid solar sector, whereby a diverse range
of start-up companies, with funding from private sector inves-
tors, have developed market-based models to disseminate off-grid
solar products to poorer populations in the Global South52. Over
the past five years there has been a rapid increase in off-grid solar
products being sold as a household commodity, globally and across
PICTs, although there are considerable variations between coun-
tries. Off-grid systems in Tuvalu and Tokelau, for example, tend to
be larger installations and have been heavily driven by aid donor
programmes43. Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea have recently
been experimenting with pay-as-you-go solar financing systems,
which were launched, and are now widely used, in the East Africa
region53. In Vanuatu in particular, the private sector (with some aid
donor and government support) has played a key role in setting up
an off-grid solar market54. In Vanuatu’s 2016 census, an estimated
64% of households were using off-grid solar as their main lighting
source—a meteoric rise from 2009, where only 2.8% of households
were using the technology55. Research and innovation are needed in
PICTs on business models for more resilient energy systems, includ-
ing the potential for greater private sector involvement, to capitalize
on recent developments in the off-grid solar sector.
Research is also needed on the governance and maintenance
implications of different ownership schemes for decentralized
energy systems. While the emergence of decentralized energy tech-
nologies is an encouraging prospect for energy resilience, ques-
tions around how they are best integrated to the broader PICT
energy melange remain open. Who should own off-grid solar
infrastructure? Who should be in charge of its distribution? Who
is responsible for its repair and maintenance? How effective could
pay-as-you-go models of financing solar, which are common in East
Africa56, be if applied in PICTs? Governments, aid donors, the pri-
vate sector and communities all undoubtedly have a role to play,
but the most appropriate configuration for their interactions is still
contested, and will probably vary across different geographical con-
texts within the region26,51,57. In Tokelau, for example, there is an
emerging issue of photovoltaic battery waste, with a lack of local
capacity and clear responsibility in terms of who should address
the issue17. Meanwhile, in Fiji there have been occasional disagree-
ments between communities and the government in terms of who
should be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of off-grid
solar power systems58. As such, there is a need to understand how
off-grid solar products can be best situated in the broader political
economy of energy governance across the PICTs. These challenges
are not unique to PICTs and there is potential to learn from other
regions and contribute to ongoing global debates on these issues.
Energy resilience research and innovation priorities
PICTs face some unique energy resilience challenges. These include
very high dependence on fossil fuels and the difficulties in sustain-
ing energy supply chains for small, remote locations under increas-
ingly challenging weather conditions. Energy utilities currently
require support from international development partners who
may be limited by their own funding cycles. PICTs have ambitious
renewable energy targets, but land scarcity and a high proportion of
renewable energy on grids can increase planning challenges. Energy
NATURE ENERGY | VOL 6 | DECEMBER 2021 | 1098–1103 | www.nature.com/natureenergy 1101

PersPective NaTuRE ENERgy
resilience will also require careful coordination between grid, mini-
grid and smaller off-grid energy products. Finally, limited technical
capacity and weak governance in some jurisdictions can hamper
implementation.
At the same time, PICTs have unique strengths in tackling the
challenges of energy resilience. With excellent renewable energy
resources and a strong fiscal motivation to reduce reliance on
imported fossil fuels, PICTs have already made energy resilience
and sustainable energy a core part of their policy agenda. Existing
regional organizations can help to further coordinate efforts, and
communities have existing customs, practices and local knowledge
that can enhance resilience in the energy sector.
This Perspective has highlighted key opportunities for improv-
ing energy resilience in PICTs through research and innovation in
three areas. The first area is energy planning and innovative finance
approaches tailored to the particular strengths and challenges in
PICTs. The second area is greater recognition and inclusion of com-
munity responses to energy challenges. The third area is promot-
ing decentralized approaches to energy in terms of governance and
technologies. Emerging from these three areas, as discussed above,
we have identified 11 research and innovation priorities, summa-
rized in Box 1.
This Perspective supports the implementation of the Framework
for Energy Security and Resilience in the Pacific 2021–2030 which
was recently endorsed at the 51st Pacific Islands Forum Leaders
Meeting in August 2021. The framework was prepared by the
Pacific Community in collaboration with the Council of Regional
Organisations in the Pacific Energy Technical Working Group,
including the Pacific Power Association, the Secretariat of the
Pacific Regional Environment Programme, the University of
the South Pacific and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. As such,
the Framework for Energy Security and Resilience in the Pacific
represents the beginning of a new phase for collaboration on energy
policy in PICTs, which places resilience at its centre. Successful
action on energy resilience will require locally led and regionally
coordinated initiatives, and will need to ensure that they can lever-
age the necessary knowledge, partnerships and capacity. We call for
a global, multidisciplinary effort to address the research and inno-
vation priorities (Box 1) in partnership with stakeholders in PICTs.
This can support evidence-based decision-making including fur-
ther development of action plans relevant to regional, national and
local agendas. Addressing these research and innovation priorities
will also contribute a Pacific perspective on energy resilience to
global debates, illustrating how other countries might address simi-
lar challenges.
Received: 2 July 2021; Accepted: 7 October 2021;
Published online: 12 November 2021
References
1. Behlert, B. et al. World Risk Report 2020 Focus: Forced Displacement and
Migration (Bündnis Entwicklung Hil & Ruhr University Bochum, 2020).
2. SE4ALL Database (World Bank, accessed 11 June 2021); https://data.
worldbank.org/
3. Dornan, M. Access to electricity in Small Island Developing States of the
Pacic: issues and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 726–735 (2014).
4. SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework Report (World Bank, 2021).
5. Rawali, M., Bruce, A., Raturi, A., Spak, B. & MacGill, I. Electricity access
challenges and opportunities in Papua New Guinea (PNG). In Proceedings of
the Asia–Pacic Solar Research Conference (Australian PV Institute, 2020).
6. Shah, K. U., Raghoo, P. & Surroop, D. An institutional-based governance
framework for energy eciency promotion in small island developing states.
Climate 9, 95 (2021).
7. Energy Compact—in Support of the SDGs by 2030 and Net-Zero Emissions by
2050 (UN Energy, 2021).
8. Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement—Synthesis
Report by the Secretariat (UNFCCC, 2021).
9. Michalena, E. & Hills, J. M. Paths of renewable energy development in small
island developing states of the South Pacic. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82,
343–352 (2018).
10. Grove, K. Resilience (Routledge, 2018).
11. Future-Proong Energy Systems: the Energy Resiliency Framework (ARUP, 2019).
12. 5-year & 20-year National Development Plan (Fiji Ministry of Economy, 2017).
13. Vanuatu 2030: e People’s Plan—National Sustainable Development Plan
(Republic of Vanuatu, 2016).
14. National Climate Change Policy 2012–2021 (Government of Tuvalu, 2011).
15. National Energy Policy (Republic of Palau, 2010).
16. Workshop Series: Energy Resilience in Pacic Island Countries and Territories
(UNSW, USP, UPNG, Loughborough University, ITP Renewables, GSES &
CSIRO, 2020); http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/event/workshop-series-energy-
resilience-pacic-island-countries
17. Small, D. et al. Workshop Background Paper: Energy Resilience in Pacic Island
Countries and Territories (UNSW, USP, UPNG, Loughborough University, ITP
Renewables, GSES & CSIRO, 2020).
18. Kumar L., Gopalakrishnan T., & Jayasinghe S. Chapter 7. In Climate Change
and Impacts in the Pacic (ed. Kumar, L.), 275–294 (Springer, 2020).
19. Lefale, P. F., Faiva, P. & Anderson, C. L. Living with Change (LivC): an
Integrated National Strategy for Enhancing the Resilience of Tokelau to Climate
Change and Related Hazards, 2017–2030 (Government of Tokelau & LEA
International Consultants, 2017).
20. Infrastructure Maintenance in the Pacic, Challenging the Build–Neglect–
Rebuild Paradigm (Pacic Region Infrastructure Facility, 2013).
21. Guidelines for Improving Building Safety and Resilience of New Single Storey
Houses and Schools in Rural Areas of Fiji (Fiji Ministry of Industry Trade and
Tourism, 2019).
22. Aquino, D. H. M., Wilkinson, S., Raery, G. M. & Potangaroa, R. Building
back towards storm-resilient housing: lessons from Fiji’s Cyclone Winston
experience. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 33, 355–364 (2018).
Box 1 | Research and innovation priorities for energy resilience
in PICTs
Planning and nance
1. Incorporate resilience principles into routine planning tools
and processes.
2. Identify key linkages between energy resilience and broader
development goals to achieve better policy integration.
3. Map potential trade-os between high quality standards
for energy systems and the ability to maintain and repair
systems.
4. Improve eld data, demand modelling and planning tools
for energy.
5. Design multistakeholder planning and implementation re-
view processes to build capacity, autonomy, transparency
and accountability for energy-related decision-making.
6. Identify pathways for addressing land conicts and broader
community politics associated with energy projects, to cre-
ate conict resolution mechanisms that can be integrated
into planning processes.
7. Identify leverage points in existing regional mechanisms
that can interface with national planning to overcome chal-
lenges of scale and capacity.
Community responses
8. Identify the resilience strategies that communities currently
deploy, including those that build on traditional customs
and practices, that could be used to improve resilience in the
energy sector.
9. Understand the energy needs and resilience strategies of his-
torically marginalized groups.
Decentralized approaches
10. Build viable business models for more resilient energy sys-
tems, including the potential for a greater private-sector
involvement.
11. Understand the governance and maintenance implications
of dierent ownership schemes for decentralized energy
systems.
NATURE ENERGY | VOL 6 | DECEMBER 2021 | 1098–1103 | www.nature.com/natureenergy
1102

PersPective
NaTuRE ENERgy
23. Michalena, E., Kouloumpis, V. & Hills, J. M. Challenges for Pacic Small
Island Developing States in achieving their Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDC). Energy Policy 114, 508–518 (2018).
24. Samuwai, J., Hills, J. M. & Michalena, E. inking outside the box: deepening
private sector investments in Fiji’s nationally determined contributions
through scenario analysis. Sustainability 11, 4161 (2019).
25. Bruce, A. Workshop on Sustainable Electricity Access in Pacic Island Countries:
from Targets to Implementation (Workshop Outcomes) (PCREEE, 2019).
26. Anantharajah, K. “But our lights were still on”: decolonizing energy futures
emerging from climate nance regulation in Fiji. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 72,
101847 (2021).
27. Samuwai, J., Fihaki, E. & Te Ruki Rangi o Tangaroa Underhill-Sem, Y.
Demystifying climate nance impacts in small island developing states:
Pacic women’s perspectives from Funafuti and Weno. Small States Territ. 3,
283–302 (2020).
28. Dornan, M. & Kalim, U. S. Energy policy, aid, and the development of
renewable energy resources in Small Island Developing States. Energy Policy
98, 759–767 (2016).
29. Evaluation of New Zealand’s Aid Programmes in the Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa
and Tokelau, a Synthesis Report (New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Aairs and
Trade & Adam Smith International, 2015).
30. Cain, T. N. Rebuild or reform: regional and subregional architecture in the
Pacic island region. J. Soc. Océan. 140, 49–58 (2015).
31. To, L. S. & Subedi, N. Chapter 5. In Energy Access and Forced Migration (ed.
Graam, O.) 81–91 (Routledge, 2019).
32. Hills, J., Michalena, E. & Chalvatzis, K. Innovative technology in the Pacic:
building resilience for vulnerable communities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
129, 16–26 (2018).
33. Sovacool, B. K., D’Agostino, A. L. & Bambawale, M. J. e socio-technical
barriers to Solar Home Systems (SHS) in Papua New Guinea: “choosing pigs,
prostitutes, and poker chips over panels”. Energy Policy 39, 1532–1542 (2011).
34. Steiner, C. E. A sea of warriors: performing an identity of resilience and
empowerment in the face of climate change in the Pacic. Contemp. Pac. 27,
147–180 (2015).
35. Koczberski, G. et al. Diusing risk and building resilience through
innovation: reciprocal exchange relationships, livelihood vulnerability and
food security amongst smallholder farmers in Papua New Guinea. Hum. Ecol.
46, 801–814 (2018).
36. Barnes, M. L. et al. Social determinants of adaptive and transformative
responses to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 823–828 (2020).
37. Urmee, T. & Harries, D. A survey of solar PV program implementers in Asia
and the Pacic regions. Energy Sustain. Dev. 13, 24–32 (2009).
38. Compendium of Case Studies on Climate Change and Disaster Risk
Management in the Pacic (Secretariat of the Pacic Community, 2015).
39. Clarke, T., McNamara, K. E., Clissold, R. & Nunn, P. D. Community-based
adaptation to climate change: lessons from Tanna Island, Vanuatu. Isl. Stud. J.
14, 59–80 (2019).
40. Ensor, J. Adaption and Resilience in Vanuatu (Stockholm Environment
Institute & Oxfam, 2015).
41. Westoby, R., McNamara, K. E., Kumar, R. & Nunn, P. D. From
community-based to locally led adaptation: evidence from Vanuatu. Ambio
49, 1466–1473 (2020).
42. Tracking SDG7: e Energy Progress Report 2021 (World Bank, 2021).
43. Cole, P. & Banks, G. Renewable energy programmes in the South Pacic—are
these a solution to dependency? Energy Policy 110, 500–508 (2017).
44. Prasad, R. D. & Raturi, A. Chapter 8. In Translating the Paris Agreement into
Action in the Pacic (ed. Singh, A.) 177–199 (Springer, 2020).
45. ESMAP. Mini Grids for Half a Billion People: Market Outlook and Handbook
for Decision Makers (World Bank, 2019).
46. Weir, T. & Kumar, M. Renewable energy can enhance resilience of small
islands. Nat. Hazards 104, 2719–2725 (2020).
47. Qazi, S. Standalone Photovoltaic (PV) Systems for Disaster Relief and Remote
Areas (Elsevier, 2017).
48. Munro, P. G. On, o, below and beyond the urban electrical grid the energy
bricoleurs of Gulu Town. Urban Geogr. 41, 428–447 (2020).
49. Samarakoon, S. e troubled path to ending darkness: energy injustice
encounters in Malawi’s o-grid solar market. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 69,
101712 (2020).
50. Betzold, C. Fuelling the Pacic: aid for renewable energy across Pacic Island
countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58, 311–318 (2016).
51. Sharma, V., Heynen, A. P., Bainton, N. & Burton, J. e Papua New Guinea
Electrication Partnership: power and diplomacy in the Pacic. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 79, 102186 (2021).
52. Cross, J. & Neumark, T. Solar power and its discontents: critiquing o-grid
infrastructures of Inclusion in East Africa. Dev. Change 52, 902–926 (2021).
53. Global O-Grid Solar Market Report Semi-Annual Sales and Impact Data
July–December 2018 (Global O-Grid Lighting Association & World Bank,
2019).
54. Walton, S. & Ford, R. Easy or arduous? Practices, perceptions and networks
driving lighting transitions from kerosene to solar in Vanuatu. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 65, 101449 (2020).
55. Munro, P. G. Energy political ecologies in the South Pacic: the politics of
energy transitions in Vanuatu. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 14, 361–378 (2021).
56. Barrie, J. & Cruickshank, H. J. Shedding light on the last mile: a study on the
diusion of pay as you go solar home systems in Central East Africa. Energy
Policy 107, 425–436 (2017).
57. Teariki, M. A. et al. Beyond home: exploring energy poverty among youth in
four diverse Pacic island states. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70, 101638 (2020).
58. Nand, A. T. & Raturi, A. Rural electrication initiatives in Fiji - a case study
of solar home systems. In ISES Solar World Congress 2015 (eds. Romero, M,
Seo, T. & Renne, D.), 1639–1645 (International Solar Energy Society, 2015).
Acknowledgements
We thank D. Small, A. Nicholls and T. Jeffrey for collating and summarizing literature
that contributed to the development of this article. This work is supported by the
Australian Renewable Energy Agency’s International Engagement Program, the
Australian Research Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering’s Research
Fellowship scheme.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Correspondence should be addressed to Long Seng To.
Peer review information Nature Energy thanks Abidah Setyowati, Kalim Shah, Evanthie
Μichalena and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer
review of this work.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
© Springer Nature Limited 2021
NATURE ENERGY | VOL 6 | DECEMBER 2021 | 1098–1103 | www.nature.com/natureenergy 1103